Summary: Ms B complained that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with her requests for advice and assistance with her housing situation. We find the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with the matter. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with her requests for advice and assistance with her housing situation. As a result, she suffered an avoidable period of homelessness, financial loss and was placed on the housing register later than she could have been. She also suffered distress and anxiety and her health deteriorated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness

6. A person is considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they have a legal right to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homelessness or threatened homelessness.
8. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 places duties on councils to intervene at an early stage and take reasonable steps to prevent and relieve homelessness for all eligible applicants.
9. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says councils must properly consider all applications for housing assistance and, if they have reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they must make enquiries to see whether they owe them any duty.
10. A council must take a homeless application from a person if it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.
11. The Code of Guidance says that, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness.
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. They should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan.
13. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant is already homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take ‘reasonable steps’ to help ensure the applicant secures accommodation which is available for at least six months. This is called the relief duty.

Housing allocations

14. Each council has its own allocations scheme (or ‘housing register’) for social housing in its area. An allocations scheme sets out the rules used to decide who to house.
15. An allocations scheme will typically set out:
16. who can apply for housing from within the area;
• who can apply from outside the area; and
• who gets priority for housing.
17. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it is carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
18. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Ms B’s homelessness application

19. Ms B was a student but had to put her studies on hold because of ill-health. She had been ‘sofa surfing’ at various friends’ homes for some time and, in November 2018 she contacted the Council for help with her housing situation.
20. On 5 December 2018 an officer sent an email to Ms B arranging an appointment for the following day and asking her to bring various documents.
21. Ms B attended the appointment and took with her all the requested documents including: passport; six months’ bank statements (28/6/18-5/12/18) proving she had no income; medical evidence; five years’ address history; and confirmation of student status and the suspension of her studies.
22. Officer X was late for the meeting because a previous meeting had taken longer than expected. The officer’s notes of the meeting state that Ms B was not happy about the delay because she had to leave in 30 minutes for a doctor’s appointment. The officer explained the assessment could not be completed because it might take up to 2 hours and Ms B would have to come back again. She asked Ms B to re-book the assessment for another day to be completed in full but says Ms B did not approach the customer services officer when leaving the building.
23. Ms B says when she told Officer X she had to leave in 30 minutes, the officer suggested they start the assessment and book another appointment to complete it at a later date. But within 20 minutes, and without looking at any of her documents or taking details of her circumstances, Officer X said the Council could not help her and she should return when she was actually homeless.
24. Officer X’s notes state Ms B had been subletting a room from a friend but had to leave on 1 February 2019. Officer X asked her to provide confirmation but Ms B said she could not do this until her friend returned from holiday.
25. Ms B says this is incorrect. She says she told Officer X she was staying with a friend for a week or two, then with another friend over Christmas. Then, between 28 December 2018 and 14 January 2019, she would be house/cat sitting for other friends who were going travelling and then subletting a room in a shared house until the end of January.
26. The same day Officer X wrote to Ms B stating the Council did not have reason to believe she was homeless, or threatened with homelessness, within the next 56 days because she had not provided a notice to quit or a letter requiring her to leave the property. Officer X advised Ms B to request a letter from her friend confirming when she had to leave. She also advised her to obtain medical evidence and a letter from the University confirming the time she had taken off from study and then contact the Council for further assistance.
27. Ms B was staying for short periods with different friends (‘sofa surfing’). So, she was legally homeless and the Council should have accepted a relief duty. Even when Ms B was looking after a friend’s property, this was not settled accommodation because she did not have a right to live there without her friend’s permission. She had no tenancy agreement or contract. It was therefore fault for the Council to tell Ms B to return when she was actually homeless.
28. The Council should have made Ms B another appointment rather than putting the onus on her to do so. Failure to do so was fault.
29. The Council was also at fault in that the decision letter did not set out Ms B’s right to request a review of the Council’s decision that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
30. Ms B says she repeatedly requested another appointment but kept being “fobbed off”. She says on 2 January 2019 she booked a follow-up appointment for 10 January 2019 but, when she arrived at the Council’s offices, she was told no appointment had been booked. There is no independent evidence to confirm what happened. So, I cannot reach a view on this point.
31. Ms B complained to the Council on 26 January 2019. She sent two emails: one complaining about the appointment on 6 December 2018 and the other asking the council to review its decision on her homelessness application. She disputed the reasons for the decision and attached evidence in support of her arguments including: six months’ bank statements; confirmation of student status; confirmation of suspension of studies and suspension of funding; confirmation from a friend that she uses her address for postal and storage purposes; and medical evidence.
32. On 7 March 2019 Ms B chased the Council for a response to her complaint. The Council apologised for the delay and arranged a meeting with the housing options manager.
33. On 27 March 2019 the Council sent an email to Ms B arranging another appointment with the housing manager on 2 April 2019. It asked her to bring: passport; proof of the suspension of her studies; bank statements; and confirmation of where she had been living over the past five years.
34. Following the appointment, the manager wrote to Ms B confirming a new caseworker, Officer Y, would be allocated to Ms B’s case for “a fresh start”.
35. On 16 April 2019 the Council responded to Ms B’s complaint. This was a significant delay.
36. On 1 May 2019 Ms B met with Officer Y. Prior to the appointment Officer Y asked her to bring: two months’ bank statements and address history for the past five years. She also asked for contact details for the people she had been staying with. Ms B says this was the first time she had been asked for this information and, if she had been asked for it previously, she would have provided it.
37. Officer Y drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) which stated that Ms B would be referred to the private-sector initiative scheme whereby the Council will pay the landlord/agent a non-refundable incentive which means the tenant is not responsible for paying their usual fees. The PHP also set out the action Ms B was required to take. She was given information to help her find suitable private rented accommodation. The document stated the PHP would be reviewed via telephone on 22 May 2019. Officer Y also gave Ms B a housing options suitability form and a health questionnaire to complete.
38. The Council wrote to Ms B the same day confirming it was satisfied she was homeless and eligible for assistance. It accepted a relief duty whereby it would take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help her secure accommodation for at least six months. The Council explained it did not have reason to believe she was in priority need so it had no duty to secure temporary accommodation for her. It informed Ms B of her right of review of this decision.
39. Ms B says the Council could have made this decision in December 2018 as her circumstances were no different in May 2019 than they had been in December 2018 and she provided the same information. She says the only new information she provided was a spreadsheet listing most of the addresses she had stayed at between September 2018 and April 2019. She says she would have prepared this list for the December 2018 assessment if she had been asked to do so. The other documents she took were those she had taken to her appointment in December 2018.
40. Officer Y spoke to Ms B on the telephone on 22 May 2019. So, the PHP was reviewed within the correct timescales.
41. On 2 July 2019 the Council wrote to Ms B stating its duty to assist her had come to an end because 56 days had passed and the Council had complied with the relief duty. It informed Ms B of her right to a review of this decision.
42. In August 2019, having completed a medical assessment, the Council reviewed its decision on whether Ms B was in priority need. It decided she was not in priority need and wrote to her on 7 August 2019 explaining the reasons for this.
43. Ms B requested a review of this decision in September 2019 and submitted further supporting evidence in October 2019.
44. Having considered this new information, the Council overturned the decision on 21 November 2019 and accepted Ms B was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. So, it owed her a full housing duty. A decision letter was sent to Ms B on 25 November 2019.
45. Ms B has recently successfully bid for a property and signed up for a social housing tenancy.

Ms B’s housing register application

46. On 21 December 2018 Ms B applied to join the Council’s housing register. She submitted supporting documents including: passport; bank statements for the previous six months; and a letter from the job centre.
47. On 28 January 2019 the Council wrote to Ms B explaining she did not qualify to join the housing register because she had not lived in the borough continuously for the last three years which was a requirement of the Council’s lettings policy.
48. The letter was sent to an address Ms B had not lived at since 2014 despite Ms B having provided her current correspondence address which she provided at her meeting with Officer X in December 2018 and in her housing register application. The letter was returned by the current occupier on 13 February 2019 stating their name and the fact that they moved into the property in September 2014. However, the Council did not re-send the letter to Ms B’s correct address.
49. Failure to use the correct address was fault and caused Ms B a significant injustice because she lost her right to request a review of the Council’s decision that she did not qualify to join the housing register.
50. In March 2019, Ms B met with the housing manager to discuss her complaint. Ms B says the manager told her that, as a European citizen, she did not qualify for housing assistance. Ms B explained she was British and had already provided a copy of her passport.
51. I find the Council was at fault in telling Ms B she did not qualify for housing when she had provided a copy of her passport in December 2018.
52. Ms B’s application was placed on the housing register on 30 November 2019. She was placed in the homeless band and given a bidding number so she could bid for properties. Her application was backdated to 1 May 2019.

Conclusions

53. I find the Council was at fault in failing to accept a relief duty to Ms B in December 2018. It was also at fault in failing to make her another appointment.
54. These faults caused Ms B a significant injustice. On a balance of probabilities, I find that, if the Council had acted as it should have done in December 2018, it would have accepted a duty to house Ms B as it did when it properly considered her application in May 2019. Ms B successfully bid for a suitable property in February 2021. Her registration date was 1 May 2019. If she had been placed on the housing register in December 2018, it is likely she would have been able to successfully bid on a property sooner.
55. The Council was also at fault in failing to notify Ms B of her right to request a review of its decision that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. But I do not consider this caused Ms B a significant injustice because she effectively requested a review of the decision in her complaint of 26 January 2019. However, the Council delayed significantly in responding to the complaint. That was also fault and caused Ms B further distress and put her to time and trouble in chasing a response.
56. I find the Council was also at fault in that in January 2019 it sent a letter explaining Ms B did not qualify to join the housing register to the wrong address and failed to correct this error once the letter was returned by the current occupier. As a result, Ms B lost her right to request a review of the decision.
57. The Council was also at fault in that, in March 2019, it informed Ms B she did not qualify for housing assistance on grounds of nationality when she had already provided a copy of her British passport. This caused further distress and frustration.

Agreed action

58. In recognition of the injustice Ms B suffered because of the Council’s failings, it has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Ms B;
• pay her £750 for the fact that she had to live in an unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary; and
• pay her £250 for her time and trouble.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I uphold Ms B’s complaint.
60. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman